Juan Carlos Delgado-Lorenzo v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny
petitioner’s request for oral argument.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CARLOS DELGADO-LORENZO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71929
Agency No. A073-731-631
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carlos Delgado-Lorenzo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Our
FILED
FEB 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 10-71929
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part
the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s discretionary determination that
petitioner failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S.
citizen child. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975,
979 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding
of removal because petitioner failed to show that the guerillas’ attempt to recruit
him was on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481-82 (1992) (holding that forced recruitment alone is not enough to show
persecution on account of political opinion). Because the Board properly denied
relief for lack of a nexus, we need not address petitioner’s contention that he
suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution by forces
the Guatemalan government is unable or unwilling to control.
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief based on
the Board’s finding that petitioner did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the
instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government.
See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --